upvote

points

by potato-peeler6 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby hnlmorg4 hours ago|
next
[-]
> So such frameworks utterly failing on such browsers is hilarious, given that they market themselves as minimal.

Minimal is an entirely different property to backwards compatibility.

reply
upvoteby potato-peeler4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
When you say something is minimal, you are implying that what little you provide will also work. Which in this case is clearly not.

motherfuckingwebsite.com is more minimal and usable than these frameworks.

reply
upvoteby digital_af3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
As you're mainly complaining about CSS layout features being used here:

For a long time we were forced to use the ugliest hacks imaginable to get to the nice (responsive, design-minimalist(!)) layouts we wanted, because CSS layout tools were utter archaic bs, for years on end, because browsers iterated so slowly.

Then things started speeding up, and we're getting to make better websites (and apps!) that are way easier to design (with the correct design theory equivalents), implenent (with less code) and easier to maintain (i.e., understand). And you're not missing out if you just keep your browser up to date.

I know it sucks if you're on an unsupported device that doesn't get any updates, fair.

But let's face it: 99% of the population is better off security-wise when we're not enabling them to run unpatched devices forever.

reply
upvoteby potato-peeler3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Security updates have nothing to do with level of support for css3 modules.

Much of the issues of layout were already solved more than 12 yrs back, ie when css3 became mainstream.

The issue is devs are unaware about different levels of css3 or just plain ignorant about it.

Are you aware about the different levels of css3? Are you even aware there are levels to css3? Why are these frameworks not listing them and simply saying that they comply with web standards? Which specific web standards do they comply?

Any new css3 feature should have a fallback if they say they comply to web standards, which these frameworks don’t add.

Basically you want to adopt latest w3c guideline but completely ignore wcag guidelines on accessibility - https://www.thewcag.com/principles/robust

Why should some population forced to suffer because of your ignorance. I am sorry if I am blunt, but your comment about polarising users is rude.

Which comes back to my main point, Devs are simply not educating themselves about the fundamentals of web design.

reply
upvoteby ambigious77771 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I think its fine to target compatability with 99.9% on people with updated devices and not some random old 2020 safafi build
reply
upvoteby abanana32 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
To be fair on this particular point, talking about iOS Safari before version 14 isn't "some random old build". It depends on your own users, but I saw plenty of 6-year-old iPhone user agents in the web logs when dealing with a doctor's surgeries app.
reply
upvoteby potato-peeler1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Even though I provided a direct link to wcag principles and guidelines, you still are too lazy to read.
reply
upvoteby Milpotel4 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> None of them work on older browser

There are older browsers which still get security patches?

reply
upvoteby potato-peeler1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They don’t unfortunately but it is a good reference for me to check how it looks on previous versions of browsers and less powerful devices. That way I know if the UI or UX needs improvement.

ios updates unfortunately ties everything to a single batch. Unlike android. I have an older blackberry, that still gets latest app updates.

What is even hilarious is ads render with pixel perfection on older devices. So for some reason, ad networks care about browser compatibility than devs putting the same ads on their incompatible website.

reply
upvoteby abanana28 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Exactly. Ad creators know that the purpose of what they're building is more important than their personal dev experience of using shiny new tools. It's such a shame the fashion is the other way for so many web developers, largely the younger and less experienced ones.

And yes, it makes sense to use one particular old browser as a general proxy for older browsers in general, so people shouldn't get hung up on the particular version of Safari you happened to mention.

reply